Thank you for your participation. The proposal is closed to new comments. We invite you to learn more about the next steps in the process here.

Dear Colleagues,

If you’ve already commented on the open discussion on the MLA’s group structure, we thank you for your contribution to this important discussion. If you haven’t yet commented, we encourage you to join the conversation. The draft proposal for a revised group structure will be available for comment on MLA Commons until 20 November. We welcome your suggestions, large and small.

So far, a number of colleagues have praised, critiqued, offered suggestions on, and expressed deep concerns over some elements of the proposal. These thoughtful and frank comments have provided important feedback for the working group, the Program Committee, and the Executive Council to consider.

As you review the proposal, you may find it helpful to look at the proposal in relation to the present list of divisions and discussion groups. In addition, please keep the following in mind:

All aspects of the draft proposal are up for discussion and additional review.

It will be most useful to us if you look at the proposed groups separately from the important question of session allocation. Note that all groups will retain all their guaranteed sessions during the five-year transition period, even if they consolidate with other groups. The number of guaranteed sessions each group will have (one, two, or more) will be determined during every five-year review, and groups will be able to articulate their needs and plans as part of the review process. Criteria for session allocation are being developed by the Program Committee and will balance size of group membership and session attendance with evidence of a group’s activities.

The proposed new groups (in orange) constitute invitations for concrete conceptualization from members. It is not too early to express interest in leading them and to talk to colleagues who might wish to design them with you.

Additional new groups and a number of other changes have been suggested in the comments on the draft proposal, and we would benefit from more feedback on these ideas.

We are grateful for comments not only on new or reconfigured groups but on groups that remain the same or that have had only small name changes. We don’t want to assume that silence equals consent.

Activity

Recent Comments in this Document

From the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature
We appreciate very much the priority given by the MLA in rethinking its structure to “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/faq/). Consequently, the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature welcomes the proposal to institute a “Catalan Forum” as it currently stands in the Jan. 3th, 2014 draft (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/).
We would like to propose, however, two modifications to the current draft. First, we would like to see the Forum titled “Catalan Studies” instead of only “Catalan” in order to encompass a wider diversity of disciplines. Secondly, we believe that, given the millenary history of Catalan culture and also the growing interest in this field, Catalan warrants not one but two forums, one on “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and one on “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies.”
The cultural production in Catalan, which spans the geographical areas of Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, the Roussillon and Sardinia and traverses various “national” boundaries (Spain, France, Andorra, Italy), is commonly divided into two periods of especial intensity and prominence with distinct characteristics: the medieval and early modern period from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries, and the modern and contemporary period from the eighteenth century to the present. We believe that the more elastic categories of “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies” can accommodate in a satisfactory way the two main divisions which structure our field. We are confident that these two proposed Catalan forums will serve as a lively space of intellectual exchange for the growing number of scholars working on Catalan culture.
We equally appreciate that our colleagues from the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th- and 21st-Century Spanish Literature support the creation of one or possibly two Catalan sub-forums under the umbrella of a new encompassing forum called “Iberia.” Catalan culture is an important part of the Iberian Studies field, and we welcome the long due acknowledgment, and the opening of more spaces for intellectual discussion. “Catalan Studies”, however, spans way beyond Iberia, and must continue to stand on its own. With a distinct forum on Catalan Studies we can freely engage with any interconnected field of study without being sidestepped to a subaltern position. We believe that a distinct Forum as the proposed in the aforementioned MLA revised draft, with the addition of our suggested modifications, is the right fit for what we envision as the future of Catalan Studies, one of the strongest emerging new fields of study in US academia. We are looking forward to continuing being a part of the MLA community.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. Such a forum would give recognition and structure to a growing subfield within Hispanic studies. I know of a number of scholars who are currently working on cultural and literary relations between Spain and Africa – with a particular emphasis on Morocco and Equatorial Guinea. The new forum will bolster this surge in scholarly interest in Hispano-African relations, and it will also create a space for other Hispanophone literatures (such as Hispanophone literature from the Philippines) that have received less scholarly attention.

In order to keep the intrinsic interdisciplinary, multicultural, and bilingual nature of Galician Studies, Galician needs to have its own forum within the MLA. Linking Galician studies with Portuguese only separates it from the Spanish studies area where a good number of research projects in Galician is conducted. Having its own forum will allow Galician studies to grow and develop free from national and ideological borders. I strongly support the creation of an independent division for Galician Studies.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. This is an already significant and rapidly-growing area of study that has developed largely within the academic programs represented by the MLA, but that has not been represented within the existing MLA division structure. This is an ideal opportunity to bring the MLA structure in line with current trends in the field.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

[The entire letter is posted under 29 “Arabic. I have excerpted here the parts that pertain to setting up the “Arab American” forum and the rationale for proposing this new forum. – Suha]
Dear Marianne and Margaret,
I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups.
As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”
Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.
Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.
By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).
We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.
Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.
Regards,
Suha Kudsieh (Chair , Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, 2014-5)
On behalf of the members of the Executive Committee
MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture:
Stephen Sheehi (Secretary), Chris Micklethwait (Ex-Chair), Wail Hassan, and Hoda El Shakry.
Shaden Tageldin and Samer Ali, MLA delegate representatives.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

I agree with Elisa Martí-López’s previous comment. The proposal for an Iberian umbrella is a valuable and refreshing one indeed. As a member of the Catalan Discussion Group, however, I also feel that an alternative is to maintain Catalan as a separate forum. I do not have categorical reasons to support this second option. One could say that maintaining Catalan as a separate forum is a way of not privileging the Iberian connections over other possible dialogues between Catalan culture and any of the cultures of the globe. But of course one can argue the opposite, namely that Catalan culture cannot be understood outside the Iberian context. But perhaps maintaining Catalan as a separate forum and then creating a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, as Martí-López suggests, could be a satisfactory way of solving this unsolvable conundrum.
At any rate, a key point of agreement is that Catalan warrants two forums: one on Pre-Modern Catalan Studies and one on Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies. These elastic categories offer a vital periodization of the millenary history of Catalan culture, which is commonly divided into the medieval period from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, and the modern period from the end of the nineteenth century to the present.

On behalf of the entire Executive Committee for the Division hitherto known as “Sociological Approaches to Literature,” I am writing to protest the change of the name of our Division/Forum to “Sociology and Literature.” We feel this name greatly misrepresents the scholarship our division features, both historically and in the present. We have little relation to the traditional discipline of sociology. Rather, our Division approaches literature, culture, and society through a historical materialist approach, in the tradition of marxist cultural criticism, the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, and more recently, queer of color critique. In the manner of scholars such as Max Weber, Stuart Hall, and Avery Gordon, we align with a critical tradition in which sociology is always already critically engaged with political economy, materialism, and critical theory. In light of the call to rename Divisions/Forums to better fit their actual preoccupations, we suggested our division be renamed “Marxist Literary and Cultural Studies.” Apparently, this has been summarily rejected. In light of that, we suggest the names “Marxism and Literature” or “Literature and Society.” We would appreciate hearing from MLA Staff on this issue.

Many thanks,
Jodi Melamed

Secretary for the Division Sociological Approaches to Literature 2014-2015